Editorial: Commonsense ways to address public comment

Posted: Sunday, June 24, 2007

Athens-Clarke County commissioners deserve due credit for their sincere wrestling with the issue of whether and how to regulate public comment at their voting meetings.

However, the recent flip-flopping by Commissioners Kelly Girtz and George Maxwell on the public comment issue beautifully illustrates the difficulty of developing a policy that balances respect for the public's need to be heard with respect for the commissioners' time, which arguably can affect the efficacy of their decision-making.

During an April commission retreat, Girtz and Maxwell were among the commissioners expressing support for a proposed policy that would require residents to sign up a day ahead to address the commission at its voting meetings, a policy the commission hopes will limit public comment at meetings that can routinely stretch into the wee hours of the morning. The proposed policy will be up for a vote at the commission's July 3 meeting.

Late last week, both Girtz and Maxwell said they'd changed their minds. According to a Friday story in this newspaper, Girtz offered the perfectly reasonable explanation that he "would rather err on the side of more discussion rather than less." Maxwell noted that listening to the public is a major part of how a commissioner should serve his constituents.

Among the commissioners on the other side of the issue is Doug Lowry, who argued in Friday's story that the public has ample time in the days and weeks prior to each of the commission's monthly voting meetings to make their views known. In making that point, Lowry offered up the compelling argument that a resident who communicates with a commissioner well in advance of a voting meeting gives that commissioner time to think about those comments. The corollary here, of course, is that last-minute public comment, such as that offered during voting meetings, might not be particularly effective. That's because commissioners - if they're paying attention as they should - likely will have made up their minds, or at least have developed strong views, on an issue long before it's scheduled for a vote.

The arguments for and against virtually unfettered public comment - although it must be noted here that citizens are, for the most part, limited to three minutes each of comment during a commission voting session - were perhaps most finely honed in Friday's story by Commissioners David Lynn and Kathy Hoard.

Lynn contended that extensive public comment constitutes "borderline abuse" of commissioners by the public, while Hoard contended that limiting public comment "reeks of arrogance" on the part of commissioners.

Lynn is correct in suggesting unfettered public comment is abusive of commissioners. In that light, neither he nor the other nine commissioners, nor even Mayor Heidi Davison, should feel any obligation to sit through long minutes or hours of repetitive commentary. As an example, it's fair to believe that commissioners considering a rezoning issue don't need to hear from dozens of people living in the affected area telling them a contemplated land use could drive down property values, increase traffic, or produce a host of other adverse consequences. Once the mayor and commission have heard from a reasonable number of residents, they should feel free to cut off public comment.

Second, while Hoard is correct in suggesting there is a certain arrogance attached to any attempt to limit public comment, there is also no small degree of arrogance among some members of the public who offer up that comment. One of the reasons public comment can occasionally take up an unreasonable amount of time is that at least some people who speak do so with the unfortunate, though understandable, conceit that their comment - and only their comment - will sway commissioners, regardless of the number of people who have already competently made the point they're rising to make.

In short, there may not be any need at all to establish any sort of formal policy to limit public comment at the commission's voting meetings - if the mayor and commission are willing to assert themselves, and the public is willing to restrain itself.